Russia has invaded Ukraine

The wildcard here is still that a lot of Americans hate Putin, and support Ukraine. Even Trump can’t burn the entire house down.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's ridiculous how far and fast the pendulum has swung in just over a month. Did anyone see this coming? Russia and America teaming up at the UN to vote against the West.

We are so incredibly screwed if this doesn't rebalance itself. I think Europe was worried that America would disengage from the continent but I don't think it ever seriously considered the prospect the Kremlin would have the backing of the White House.

Putin probably can't believe his luck. Trump backing him at the UN. Defending Russia and blaming Ukraine.

In fairness, when Pierre commented that a Trump win would be hilarious, Mr K responded

Originally Posted by Mr K

The World becomes a much a more unstable place, with a dictator given a free hand, to walk through Europe. Hilariously entertaining...

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In fairness, when Pierre commented that a Trump win would be hilarious, Mr K responded

Spot on. It is this moronic "own the libs" mentality that got Trump over the line:

That I really don't care that much, but just for entertainment value I think it would be hilarious if Trump won, just to see everybody lose their minds over it.

As Socrates put it:

“Democracy is only as good as the education that surrounds it."

Originally Posted by ianch99

Spot on. It is this moronic "own the libs" mentality that got Trump over the line:

I disagree. The US Democrats have veered far further to the left on social policy than even most European countries, which is an irony in itself as Americans generally assume we’re all so far left we’re practically communist.

‘DEI,’ permissive attitudes towards illegal immigrants (the euphemism ‘undocumented’ is telling) and genderism aren’t just dog whistle issues. Collectively they have enraged a lot of people. The Dems dropped the ball by becoming obsessed with these issues and the whole world is less stable because of it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

I disagree. The US Democrats have veered far further to the left on social policy than even most European countries, which is an irony in itself as Americans generally assume we’re all so far left we’re practically communist.

‘DEI,’ permissive attitudes towards illegal immigrants (the euphemism ‘undocumented’ is telling) and genderism aren’t just dog whistle issues. Collectively they have enraged a lot of people. The Dems dropped the ball by becoming obsessed with these issues and the whole world is less stable because of it.

Correcting a shift on social policy should never mean handing over the destiny of a foreign country to a bullying neighbour. The Democrats can be blamed for many things but not this.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Correcting a shift on social policy should never mean handing over the destiny of a foreign country to a bullying neighbour. The Democrats can be blamed for many things but not this.

Well, kind of yes, kind of no.

Trump said he was going to do this before he took office. He said he respected Putin and was sympathetic to his grievances. Obviously the Dems are not responsible for Trump pulling the lever on any of these issues, but you and I both know how political histories are written. Years from now the Dems will be held culpable for losing an election against the most unelectable, odious, unqualified candidate ever to run for president, and for doing so twice. In 2016 as much as in 2024 this was theirs to lose. How they contrived to actually lose it ought to be the subject of much introspection.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

I disagree. The US Democrats have veered far further to the left on social policy than even most European countries, which is an irony in itself as Americans generally assume we’re all so far left we’re practically communist.

‘DEI,’ permissive attitudes towards illegal immigrants (the euphemism ‘undocumented’ is telling) and genderism aren’t just dog whistle issues. Collectively they have enraged a lot of people. The Dems dropped the ball by becoming obsessed with these issues and the whole world is less stable because of it.

I don't see the Democrats as to the left of mainstream, Europe, far from it. Most people complain about DEI do not appreciate what the underlying goals are. Some examples:

- In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

- President Clinton signed the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act in 1998, helps eligible veterans access federal job opportunities by allowing them to compete for positions typically open only to current federal employees and by reinforcing veterans' preference in hiring.

- In 2009, in response to calls for the US government to do more for disabled veterans returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan President Barack Obama signed executive order 13518, which established the Veterans Employment Initiative to enhance recruitment and retention of veterans in the federal workforce by creating a comprehensive framework to support their transition into civilian employment.

Most reasonable people would not disagree with the above.

There are always examples where programmes like DEI meet resistance, sometimes justified, yet it does not undermine the veracity of basic goals. As with many examples throughout history, populists & autocrats will always try and convince you that something that is not a threat and has undeniable merit should be dismantled because of biased misinformation.

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------

The last comment is a sinister one:

The Dems dropped the ball by becoming obsessed with these issues and the whole world is less stable because of it.

The world is less stable because of perceived failures of the former administration but not because of the current one who employed industrial levels of lies, misdirection and misinformation to gain power and who is now dismantling the checks & balances of the US democracy?

Wow ...

Originally Posted by ianch99

Most reasonable people would not disagree with the above.

The first one yeah, the other two, not so much.
They are typical examples of discrimination [in favour] of one group over another group of equally qualified people.
There shoud be no discrimination either way.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Correcting a shift on social policy should never mean handing over the destiny of a foreign country to a bullying neighbour. The Democrats can be blamed for many things but not this.

Yes. The Democrats weren't "obsessed" with these things (DEI, etc.) rather they were just incompetent. It was the GOP propaganda that drove this messaging and it seems, very effectively.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

The first one yeah, the other two, not so much.
They are typical examples of discrimination [in favour] of one group over another group of equally qualified people.
There shoud be no discrimination either way.

I think the emphasis here is removing discrimination rather than favouring one group over another. It always comes down to the fact that most people are not in these (historically) discriminated against minorities so fail to appreciate how things can be different.

There will always be cases where such legislation is abused but these would be in the minority. They will, however, be used to misrepresent the process and, as we see, weaponised to tear down the whole construct.

Originally Posted by ianch99

The last comment is a sinister one:



The world is less stable because of perceived failures of the former administration but not because of the current one who employed industrial levels of lies, misdirection and misinformation to gain power and who is now dismantling the checks & balances of the US democracy?

Wow ...

You need to lay off the performative pearl-clutching and understand how historians work.

This concept is no less controversial than criticising Neville Chamberlain for returning from Munich having appeased Hitler. Obviously Hitler caused the war and bears ultimate responsibility for what followed. That does not preclude criticism of those who failed to use what influence they had to slow or stop his preferred course of action unfolding.

In times to come people will look at the train wreck of Trump’s presidencies - the present one most of all - and wonder how the Democrats can have fumbled in order to lose to a known philanderer, abuser, felon and bully, not to mention someone who had already presided over one chaotic term in the White House. The depths of their complacency and their myopic policy obsessions are an outrage and I predict historians will not be charitable to them.

And yes, while whatever horror unfolds in Ukraine this year will primarily rest at Vladimir Putin’s door, he will have been aided and abetted by Donald Trump, who in turn had his chance to make a mess of things because the Dems lost an election that was theirs for the taking. When the history books are written, theirs may only be a minor contribution, but they are nonetheless a factor.

Who to believe?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/7b4...a6b7c36fcbfbf3

The Kremlin has denied a claim by President Trump that Russia would accept European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine as part of a potential deal to end the conflict.

Trump suggested on Monday that the Ukraine war could end “within weeks”, as he invited President Zelensky to a meeting in Washington and claimed President Putin had “no problem” with European peacekeeping troops in the country.

But Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, when asked on Tuesday about Trump’s comments, referred reporters to an earlier statement that such a move would be unacceptable to Moscow.

[thenry]

Nobody. We shall see Zelenskyys negotiation skills.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Who to believe?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/7b4...a6b7c36fcbfbf3

Never Trump seems to work well in most situations.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

You need to lay off the performative pearl-clutching and understand how historians work.

This concept is no less controversial than criticising Neville Chamberlain for returning from Munich having appeased Hitler. Obviously Hitler caused the war and bears ultimate responsibility for what followed. That does not preclude criticism of those who failed to use what influence they had to slow or stop his preferred course of action unfolding.

In times to come people will look at the train wreck of Trump’s presidencies - the present one most of all - and wonder how the Democrats can have fumbled in order to lose to a known philanderer, abuser, felon and bully, not to mention someone who had already presided over one chaotic term in the White House. The depths of their complacency and their myopic policy obsessions are an outrage and I predict historians will not be charitable to them.

And yes, while whatever horror unfolds in Ukraine this year will primarily rest at Vladimir Putin’s door, he will have been aided and abetted by Donald Trump, who in turn had his chance to make a mess of things because the Dems lost an election that was theirs for the taking. When the history books are written, theirs may only be a minor contribution, but they are nonetheless a factor.

Straight to the personal attack. You said the the world is "less stable" because of the Democrats. You are wrong. It's like blaming Ukraine for failing to stop Russia invading. It is clear to most who is to blame in both scenarios.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by thenry

Nobody. We shall see Zelenskyys negotiation skills.

It's less about his negotiating skills - assuming he's invited to the table - and more about what he's got to negotiate with. As things stand, Trump seems to have taken away most of the cards in Zelenskyy's hand and given them to Putin in exchange for nothing.